This document contains a formula which amounts to relativistic tyranny:

The [Second Vatican] Council’s [innovative] doctrinal teachings require of the faithful a degree of assent called “religious submission of will and intellect”. Precisely because it is “religious” assent, such assent is not based purely on rational motives. This kind of adherence does not take the form of an act of faith. Rather, it is an act of obedience that is not merely disciplinary, but is well-rooted in our confidence in the divine assistance given to the Magisterium, and therefore “within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith” …

… A number of innovations of a doctrinal nature are to be found in the documents of the Second Vatican Council … These innovations in matters concerning faith or morals, not proposed with a definitive act, still require religious submission of intellect and will …

Those who know the religion of Judaism know what’s going on here. The rabbis “don’t listen to heavenly voices.” They say, “the Torah is not in heaven.” Their god says, “my sons have defeated me.” Their god is mutable; nothing more than a totem the possession of which gives them absolute, tyrannical authority which they use to innovate and enforce doctrines as needed, or to destroy and blot out problematic doctrines.

Expect much more of this kind of relativisation of perennial Church teaching enforced by absolute authority (at the service of the rabbis) as long as religious relations with the rabbis continue. And play close attention to how that authority is selectively enforced.

Contraray to what is stated below, the seven “Noahide Laws” are not in the Tanach (Old Testament). They’re a tyrannical, talmudic invention.

“I hereby sign that I will undertake to observe the Seven Noachide Laws and declare my faithfulness to the Jewish nation according to Jewish values,” it is written in the statement. “I know that if I am caught violating any one of these laws, my employer will be allowed to fire me with no prior notice nor compensation.”

Arabs in Tzefat and the Seven Noachide Laws

Shmais News Service

Thursday, Feb 18, 2010

Below is a free translation of an article that appeared in the Maariv newspaper on Wednesday:

Do Arab workers in businesses in Tzefat and the surrounding area need to fulfill commandments from the Tanach? This is the opinion of activists from the “Jewish Values Lobby,” who are starting a campaign to persuade employers to ask their workers to sign a religious statement according to which they will undertake to observe the Seven Noachide Laws. These include prohibitions against eating parts of a live animal, serving idols, desecrating Hashem’s name, immorality, robbery, and violence.

This initiative, which is expected to take Israeli Arabs by storm, was officially launched today. Lobbyists will visit businesses in Tzefat and the surrounding communities, which employ hundreds of Arabs living nearby, and they will ask them to sign their employees on a commitment to observe the Seven Noachide Laws.

“I hereby sign that I will undertake to observe the Seven Noachide Laws and declare my faithfulness to the Jewish nation according to Jewish values,” it is written in the statement. “I know that if I am caught violating any one of these laws, my employer will be allowed to fire me with no prior notice nor compensation.”

The Jewish Values Lobby explained that this campaign does not contradict a directive from one of the Jewish leaders of the generation from two years ago against employing Arab workers in public places. “We recommend that people don’t employ Arab workers,” a spokesman from the lobby explained. “But unfortunately, there are many Jews who employ Arabs in their stores, so we decided to deal with reality.”

“The Internet broke down the walls of the ghetto that the haredi world built up.”

Ultra-Orthodox seek boycott of their own Web sites

AMY TEIBEL – Associated Press

Monday, Jan. 25, 2010

JERUSALEM — Prominent ultra-Orthodox Israeli rabbis are targeting a new foe in the decidedly impious world of the Internet: They’ve demanded a boycott of their community’s own Web sites, accusing them of disseminating “gossip, slander … filth and abominations.”

It’s the latest flashpoint in a long-simmering battle by rabbis in the profoundly insular ultra-Orthodox, or haredi, community to preserve their influence over hundreds of thousands of followers in an era when the forces of technology are growing ever more powerful.

The ultra-Orthodox portals do not contain the seamy material that traditionally has been the main target of rabbinical ire. But the sites, which publish articles on politics, economics, health and religion, do offer freewheeling discussions with irreverent and unmonitored reader responses – including direct criticism of rabbis’ authority.

A reader responding to a recent report on alleged bribery in an ultra-Orthodox school in the Tel Aviv area posted a photograph of the “hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil” monkeys, likening them to municipal, school board and rabbinical officials.

Another reader, commenting on a legal dispute that made its way from a religious court to a secular court, predicted that the “harediban” – a play on the word “Taliban” – would lose their grip on the community.

The anonymous comments are an injection of openness in the intensely cloistered world of Israel’s estimated 650,000 haredim, Hebrew for “God fearing.” The haredim live in isolated enclaves across Israel and study in closed school systems. These communities, easily recognized by their bearded men in long black coats and brimmed hats, have minimal contact with the rest of the world.

Ultra-Orthodox rabbis have labored hard to throw up walls between their community and the outside world, and technology has long been a battleground.

Television was an early target and remains off-limits in many ultra-Orthodox homes. Cellular phones were another point of contention, with rabbis ordering the use of “kosher” filters out of fear the phones would be used to access sex sites or other objectionable material.

Haredi rabbis have been railing against the dangers of the Internet for a decade. In one infamous incident, the family of Israel’s Sephardic chief rabbi, Shlomo Amar, had a 17-year-old boy kidnapped and beaten at knifepoint after he became acquainted with the rabbi’s daughter through an Internet chat room and later met her unchaperoned – an ultra-Orthodox taboo. Amar was not charged in the case.

The very existence of haredi Web sites gives the Internet a cloak of legitimacy in the ultra-Orthodox world, said Menachem Friedman, an expert on Jewish religious society in Israel.

“If there are haredi Web sites, then it means the Internet is kosher,” with all the openness to the outside world that legitimacy would imply, he said.

The sites, largely run by members of the haredi community, provide a rare outlet for public discourse, further upsetting the rabbis, says Avishay Ben Haim, religious affairs reporter for Israel’s Maariv daily.

The Web sites “set the agenda,” he said. “They are threatening the old elite.”

The rabbis haven’t been able to keep out the Web entirely. They have offered a dispensation to businesspeople and others who use it to make a living. And filters devised over the years have permitted the ultra-Orthodox to strictly screen content, allowing the Internet to flourish in their midst.

Now, the rabbis are trying to plaster the cracks in the haredi world’s self-imposed walls.

In a letter published recently in ultra-Orthodox newspapers, 21 top rabbis called for an Internet boycott, specifically of the haredi sites, which they said were “defaming the haredi community” and spreading slander and filth.

“We must vilify these sites and purge them from our midst,” said the letter.

Even if the sites themselves aren’t guilty of objectionable conduct, “they are making people use the despicable Internet, which has harmed so many Jewish souls,” added the letter, which has been posted on the same haredi Web sites they wanted boycotted.

Web site operators did not return calls or e-mails seeking comment.

In the U.S., home to the world’s second-largest Jewish community after Israel, there’s been no similar boycott call, said Rabbi Avi Shafran, spokesman for the haredi Agudath Israel of America group. But he said he could identify with the rabbis’ concerns.

The blogosphere “may have worthy offerings but it is saturated, too, with hatred, lies, half-truths and slander,” Shafran said in an e-mail. He said when sites allow anonymous comments, “the potential for what is Jewishly wrong is magnified exponentially.”

Agudath Israel of America has never maintained a Web site, Shafran said, for fear that would “send a subliminal message to people that the Web is a place they should regard as benign.”

So far, the boycott calls in Israel have already claimed significant victories. At least two sites have shut down and key figures have resigned from another.

But insiders don’t expect the ban to squelch Internet use.

“The Internet broke down the walls of the ghetto that the haredi world built up,” said Ben Haim, the Maariv reporter.

Soldier sent to detention for cooking on Shabbat after cat ate his meal

Kfir brigade soldier about to eat Shabbat meal finds out a cat has ‘tasted’ their meal. Soldier offers to cook new meal, gets caught, sentenced to 20 days in detention for violating IDF rules

Hanan GreenbergPublished: 12.02.09 / Israel News

A combat soldier from the Nahshon battalion was sentenced to 20 days in detention, after he found out a stray cat “tasted” his Shabbat meal and decided to cook a new meal, despite IDF’s strict orders that forbid cooking on the holy day.

Last weekend, the soldier and his friends, who serve with the Kfir division, entered the base’s dining room, and intended to eat from a pot of cholent (meat stew) that was cooked according to the Shabbat regulations.

However, before they managed to dig in, the soldiers were surprised to discover that a cat ate out of the pot. The soldier, who refused to eat from the tainted pot, offered instead to make a light meal for him and his friends.

As his luck would have it, during the meal preparations, one of the kitchen’s staff arrived and instructed the soldier to stop cooking immediately.

Details of the incident were handed over to the battalion commander, who decided to put the soldier on trial and sentenced him to 20 days in detention for violating IDF orders.

“There are clear orders about observing the Shabbat, and even if the food was inedible there are other options to get food without desecration of the Sabbath,” said IDF sources.

The soldier’s battalion friends, who expressed discontent with the harsh punishment, claimed the soldier “did not mean to disrespect anyone; he only wanted to make a meal – a symbolic punishment would have been sufficient.”

IDF’s Spokesperson office said in response: “This is a case of a soldier which was sentenced to detention due to disorderly conduct and violation of IDF rules. The soldier has been known to have disciplinary problems in the past.”

These are dark times. While you were sleeping the cockroaches were busy about their work, rummaging through the US Constitution, and putting the finishing touches on a scheme to assert absolute power over the nation’s financial markets and the country’s economic future. Industry representative Henry Paulson has submitted legislation to congress that will finally end the pretense that Bush controls anything more than reading the lines from a 4′ by 6′ teleprompter situated just inches from his lifeless pupils. Paulson is in charge now, and the coronation is set for sometime early next week. He rose to power in a stealthily-executed Bankster’s Coup in which he, and his coterie of dodgy friends, declared martial law on the US economy while elevating himself to supreme leader.

“All Hail Caesar!” The days of the republic are over.

Section 8 of the proposed legislation says it all:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Right; “non-reviewable” supremacy.

Congress, of course, is more than eager to abdicate whatever little authority they have left. They’re infinitely grateful for their purely ceremonial role, the equivalent of Caligula’s horse, albeit, with considerably less dignity. Has even one senator spoken out against this madness, which–according to informal internet polls–is resoundingly rejected by the voters?

WASHINGTON — Making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson repeatedly said today’s financial problems were long in the making. He should know. He was part of the Gold Rush that has brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse.

Paulson presided over one of the most profitable runs on Wall Street as chairman and chief executive officer of investment banking titan Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1999 until President Bush nominated him on May 30, 2006 to take over the Treasury Department.

Back then, Bush saw Paulson’s Wall Street experience as a plus. “Hank will follow in the footsteps of Alexander Hamilton and other distinguished Treasury secretaries who used their talents and wisdom to strengthen our financial markets and expand the reach of the American Dream,” Bush said at the time.

But with Paulson now seeking virtually unfettered authority to administer the largest bailout of the financial industry in U.S. history, many are wondering whether Paulson also doesn’t come with enormous potential conflicts of interest.

That was one reason Democrats on Sunday expressed reluctance to approve the administration’s draft legislation that would leave to Paulson virtually all authority over the proposed $700 billion bailout. The legislation would allow him to decide which securities to buy, from whom to buy them, and which outside companies and people to hire to help him do so.

“If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight,” said Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barrack Obama. “Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check.”

In recent days, there’ve been few outward expressions of distrust of Paulson in particular. In fact, many said his long reign on Wall Street make him uniquely qualified to deal with today’s problems.

“Hank is the right guy,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who made his millions providing information to Wall Street traders, told NBC’s Meet the Press. “If I had to have one person at the helm today I would pick Hank Paulson.”

But the conflicts are also visible. Paulson has surrounded himself with former Goldman executives as he tries to navigate the domino-like collapse of several parts of the global financial market. And others have gone off to lead companies that could be among those that receive a bailout.

In late July, Paulson tapped Ken Wilson, one of Goldman’s most senior executives, to join him as an adviser on what to about problems in the U.S. and global banking sector.

Paulson’s former assistant secretary, Robert Steel, left in July to become head of Wachovia, the Charlotte-based bank that has hundreds of millions of troubled mortgage loans on its books.

The administration’s draft law also would preclude court review of steps Paulson might take, something Joshua Rosner, managing director of economic researcher Graham Fisher & Co. in New York, said could be used to mask previous illegal activity.

“The Treasury’s ability to, without oversight, determine (that) a financial institution (is) an agent of the government seems like it could be used to serve several purposes, including limiting the potential liabilities of an institution or its executives,” he wrote in a note to investors late Sunday.

The Treasury proposal sent to Congress also offers no process to hire asset managers in an open and competitive process. That’s particularly questionable given that Wall Street players are now hiring Wall Street players, Rosner said.

“This seems to invite a risk of collusion between sellers and buyers to the detriment of the taxpayer,” he wrote.

At a minimum, there’s irony in Paulson being in charge of so large a bailout.

In the last annual report at Goldman that Paulson signed off on in November 2005, a year in which he received $38 million in compensation, investors were clearly told that the federal government wouldn’t be there to save them from bad investments.

“Goldman Sachs, as a participant in the securities and commodities and futures and options industries, is subject to extensive regulation in the United States and elsewhere,” the report said.

But those regulations are designed to protect the interests of clients in the market, it said. “They are not … charged with protecting the interest of Goldman Sachs shareholders or creditors,” it said.

That’s a different tune from the one Paulson was singing Sunday.

“Last week there were times when the capital markets or credit markets were frozen,” Paulson said on NBC’s Meet the press. “American companies weren’t able to raise financing. That has very serious consequences. So what we need to do right now is stabilize the markets, and this is for the, for the benefit of the taxpayers we’re doing this, the American public. Then, once we get behind this and get this stabilized, there’s a lot we can talk about in terms of reform.”

What Paulson didn’t say is that the excesses that led to the frozen credit markets couldn’t have happened without Wall Street. Lenders weakened their standards because loans were sold to investment banks, which didn’t much care about the loan quality since they then pooled the loans with thousands of other loans and sold them as bonds to investors. If the whole thing collapsed, it would be the investors who lost out.

Those bonds, called mortgage-backed securities, are precisely the bad assets taxpayers will now be buying back from Paulson’s colleagues on Wall Street.

During Paulson’s tenure, Goldman was not as big a player in issuing mortgage bonds as two other investment banks that have gone under this year, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

But the 2005 annual report shows that Goldman was still a significant player. Its trading division, which included the mortgage bonds and complex financial instruments called derivatives, reported pre-tax earnings of more than $6.2 billion, up sharply from $3.5 billion in 2003.

The report also shows that Goldman benefited greatly from the wave that is now being deemed a wave of excess.

Goldman’s pre-tax earnings rose from $4.4 billion in 2003 to almost $8.3 billion in 2005. Similarly, its investment banking division had pre-tax earnings leap from $207 million to $413 million.

Paulson’s personal fortunes also zoomed in those years.

In 2002, Paulson received $12.1 million in compensation, including a $6.3 million bonus — an improvement over the previous three years when Wall Street accounting scandals unsettled investment banks, including a $1.5 billion settlement Goldman and other banks paid for issuing overly bullish research reports that promoted deals the banks themselves were involved in.

Published reports said Paulson received $30 million in compensation and salary in 2003.

After Paulson left Goldman and mortgage bonds began losing money, the investment bank erased those losses and then some by betting against the very products it had sold, Fortune magazine reported last year.

These are dark times. While you were sleeping the cockroaches were busy about their work, rummaging through the US Constitution, and putting the finishing touches on a scheme to assert absolute power over the nation’s financial markets and the country’s economic future. Industry representative Henry Paulson has submitted legislation to congress that will finally end the pretense that Bush controls anything more than reading the lines from a 4′ by 6′ teleprompter situated just inches from his lifeless pupils. Paulson is in charge now, and the coronation is set for sometime early next week. He rose to power in a stealthily-executed Bankster’s Coup in which he, and his coterie of dodgy friends, declared martial law on the US economy while elevating himself to supreme leader.

“All Hail Caesar!” The days of the republic are over.

Section 8 of the proposed legislation says it all:

“Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.”

Right; “non-reviewable” supremacy.

Congress, of course, is more than eager to abdicate whatever little authority they have left. They’re infinitely grateful for their purely ceremonial role, the equivalent of Caligula’s horse, albeit, with considerably less dignity. Has even one senator spoken out against this madness, which–according to informal internet polls–is resoundingly rejected by the voters?

WASHINGTON — Making the rounds on the Sunday morning talk shows, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson repeatedly said today’s financial problems were long in the making. He should know. He was part of the Gold Rush that has brought the global financial system to the brink of collapse.

Paulson presided over one of the most profitable runs on Wall Street as chairman and chief executive officer of investment banking titan Goldman Sachs & Co. from 1999 until President Bush nominated him on May 30, 2006 to take over the Treasury Department.

Back then, Bush saw Paulson’s Wall Street experience as a plus. “Hank will follow in the footsteps of Alexander Hamilton and other distinguished Treasury secretaries who used their talents and wisdom to strengthen our financial markets and expand the reach of the American Dream,” Bush said at the time.

But with Paulson now seeking virtually unfettered authority to administer the largest bailout of the financial industry in U.S. history, many are wondering whether Paulson also doesn’t come with enormous potential conflicts of interest.

That was one reason Democrats on Sunday expressed reluctance to approve the administration’s draft legislation that would leave to Paulson virtually all authority over the proposed $700 billion bailout. The legislation would allow him to decide which securities to buy, from whom to buy them, and which outside companies and people to hire to help him do so.

“If we grant the Treasury broad authority to address the immediate crisis, we must insist on independent accountability and oversight,” said Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barrack Obama. “Given the breach of trust we have seen and the magnitude of the taxpayer money involved, there can be no blank check.”

In recent days, there’ve been few outward expressions of distrust of Paulson in particular. In fact, many said his long reign on Wall Street make him uniquely qualified to deal with today’s problems.

“Hank is the right guy,” New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who made his millions providing information to Wall Street traders, told NBC’s Meet the Press. “If I had to have one person at the helm today I would pick Hank Paulson.”

But the conflicts are also visible. Paulson has surrounded himself with former Goldman executives as he tries to navigate the domino-like collapse of several parts of the global financial market. And others have gone off to lead companies that could be among those that receive a bailout.

In late July, Paulson tapped Ken Wilson, one of Goldman’s most senior executives, to join him as an adviser on what to about problems in the U.S. and global banking sector.

Paulson’s former assistant secretary, Robert Steel, left in July to become head of Wachovia, the Charlotte-based bank that has hundreds of millions of troubled mortgage loans on its books.

The administration’s draft law also would preclude court review of steps Paulson might take, something Joshua Rosner, managing director of economic researcher Graham Fisher & Co. in New York, said could be used to mask previous illegal activity.

“The Treasury’s ability to, without oversight, determine (that) a financial institution (is) an agent of the government seems like it could be used to serve several purposes, including limiting the potential liabilities of an institution or its executives,” he wrote in a note to investors late Sunday.

The Treasury proposal sent to Congress also offers no process to hire asset managers in an open and competitive process. That’s particularly questionable given that Wall Street players are now hiring Wall Street players, Rosner said.

“This seems to invite a risk of collusion between sellers and buyers to the detriment of the taxpayer,” he wrote.

At a minimum, there’s irony in Paulson being in charge of so large a bailout.

In the last annual report at Goldman that Paulson signed off on in November 2005, a year in which he received $38 million in compensation, investors were clearly told that the federal government wouldn’t be there to save them from bad investments.

“Goldman Sachs, as a participant in the securities and commodities and futures and options industries, is subject to extensive regulation in the United States and elsewhere,” the report said.

But those regulations are designed to protect the interests of clients in the market, it said. “They are not … charged with protecting the interest of Goldman Sachs shareholders or creditors,” it said.

That’s a different tune from the one Paulson was singing Sunday.

“Last week there were times when the capital markets or credit markets were frozen,” Paulson said on NBC’s Meet the press. “American companies weren’t able to raise financing. That has very serious consequences. So what we need to do right now is stabilize the markets, and this is for the, for the benefit of the taxpayers we’re doing this, the American public. Then, once we get behind this and get this stabilized, there’s a lot we can talk about in terms of reform.”

What Paulson didn’t say is that the excesses that led to the frozen credit markets couldn’t have happened without Wall Street. Lenders weakened their standards because loans were sold to investment banks, which didn’t much care about the loan quality since they then pooled the loans with thousands of other loans and sold them as bonds to investors. If the whole thing collapsed, it would be the investors who lost out.

Those bonds, called mortgage-backed securities, are precisely the bad assets taxpayers will now be buying back from Paulson’s colleagues on Wall Street.

During Paulson’s tenure, Goldman was not as big a player in issuing mortgage bonds as two other investment banks that have gone under this year, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers.

But the 2005 annual report shows that Goldman was still a significant player. Its trading division, which included the mortgage bonds and complex financial instruments called derivatives, reported pre-tax earnings of more than $6.2 billion, up sharply from $3.5 billion in 2003.

The report also shows that Goldman benefited greatly from the wave that is now being deemed a wave of excess.

Goldman’s pre-tax earnings rose from $4.4 billion in 2003 to almost $8.3 billion in 2005. Similarly, its investment banking division had pre-tax earnings leap from $207 million to $413 million.

Paulson’s personal fortunes also zoomed in those years.

In 2002, Paulson received $12.1 million in compensation, including a $6.3 million bonus — an improvement over the previous three years when Wall Street accounting scandals unsettled investment banks, including a $1.5 billion settlement Goldman and other banks paid for issuing overly bullish research reports that promoted deals the banks themselves were involved in.

Published reports said Paulson received $30 million in compensation and salary in 2003.

After Paulson left Goldman and mortgage bonds began losing money, the investment bank erased those losses and then some by betting against the very products it had sold, Fortune magazine reported last year.